Skip to main content

About your Search

20130204
20130212
Search Results 0 to 2 of about 3 (some duplicates have been removed)
with this sequester, it was a total disaster for them. then they decide not to fight on the debt ceiling and they need to move the attention on to something else. say they do have leverage elsewhere. so they have chosen sequester and put up a very brave face on it. it's possible they could convince themselves to let it actually happen but the idea that they get some sort of significant political gain from it, these are cuts they hated and they hated in large part because they hurt things they care about. so to permit the sequester to go forward on that kind of rationale is not a political win, not a policy win. everybody is losing. >> the "new york times" op-ed says more than a million jobs are on the line if this deal isn't made. a quote saying the losses will soon spread as contracts to states and cities are cut, education and police grants are cut, and payments to medicare providers are cut, even the aid just approved to victims of hurricane sandy will fall under the sequester's act. americans are about to find out what happens when an entire political party demands deficit reduction at all costs b
our near default based on the debt ceiling fiasco, okay, it makes sense to go into a panic zone, drop down to 1 1/2 to 2% on a 10-year. fast forward 18 months we've resolved the debt ceiling issues and the fiscal cliff to boot. the ecb has done a 180 on supporting spain. the equity markets have more than fully recovered and yet bonds are still mired down to 1 1/2 to 2%. if this is year people wake up and say rates are too low for the conditions. lori:. lori: do you believe the markets are undervalued. many are near 52-week highs. many all-time highs but you still think there is value? >> we look long term people get obsessed with numbers on the s&p because that is where we peaked back in '99 and 2000. they assumed it was overvalued there because it was overvalued then. in our price matters '99 and 2000 that was 100% overvalued. that happened four times in history. every time that's happened you spend about 12 to 14 years chopping sideways. we're getting to the end of that. on that same 1550 type level we're now thinking it is 10 to 15% undervalued. why would that be? well earnings hav
Search Results 0 to 2 of about 3 (some duplicates have been removed)